Contrast The Outrage

Part Two

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Legitimate outrage is being expressed at the Obama administration's coverup of the truth about the seven-hour siege at the Benghazi consulate of the United States of America that resulted in the brutal killing of three Americans, including Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, on Tuesday, September 13, 2012. Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and his minions, including United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and United Nations Ambassador tot he United Nations Susan Rice and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, kept insisting over a period of two weeks that a little seen trailer for a motion picture called Innocence of the Muslims when the truth was the White House knew within hours that the assault, far from being a "spontaneous demonstration," was terrorist operation from beginning to end.

Whether or not Obama/Soetoro did so himself, it has now been established that officials of the government of the United States of America were able to watch the assault in what they call "real time" these days. No one who watched that tragedy unfold over the course of seven hours as a result of camera coverage provided by American military drone aircraft could conclude that it was anything other than a planned military-style assault to commemorate the eleventh anniversary of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Yet it is that the Vice President of the United States of America, the pro-abortion Catholic named Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., attempted to blame the "intelligence community" for the administration's ever-shifting story when he debated United States Representative Paul Davis Ryan (R-Wisconsin) on Thursday, October 11, 2012, further claiming, again falsely, that the administration never received any requests from Ambassador Stevens for such security:

RADDATZ: What were you first told about the attack? Why -- why were
people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw
armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go
on (inaudible)?

BIDEN: Because that was exactly what we were told by the intelligence
community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned
more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.
That's why there's also an investigation headed by Tom Pickering, a
leading diplomat from the Reagan years, who is doing an investigation as
to whether or not there are any lapses, what the lapses were, so that
they will never happen again.

RADDATZ: And they wanted more security there.

BIDEN: Well, we weren't told they wanted more security there. We did
not know they wanted more security again. And by the way, at the time we
were told exactly -- we said exactly what the intelligence community
told us that they knew. That was the assessment. And as the intelligence
community changed their view, we made it clear they changed their view.

The "intelligence community" did not tell the administration that the assault was the result of a "spontaneous demonstration" that went bad.

There are messages from the late Ambassador Stevens to the United States Department of State requesting more security.

Moreover, President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro chose not to intervene militarily after being refused permission by the Libyan government to intervene in an effort to rescue those in the consulate.

These are, in plain English, impeachable offenses.

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro did not want to offend the Mohammedans based in Tripoli, Libya, who control part of the country that, thanks to "allied" intervention that overthrew Muammar al-Qaddafi last year, has returned to the tribal warfare that Qaddafi kept in check during his his forty-two years in power. And, of course, he cannot admit that his administration, which "killed" Osama bin Laden on May 2, 2011 (Pakistan time), was blind to terrorist attacks and that his overtures to the Mohammedan world have not "pacified the spirits" of those who take the teachings of their false, blasphemous "prophet," Mohammed, seriously and thus seek revenge against the infidels from the West.

Even some secular commentators have noted that this massive coverup is unraveling before our very eyes:

What did the President know and when did he know it? That famous question from Watergate should resurface today as news breaks that President Obama and his administration knew 2 hours after the attack that led to the murder of Libyan Ambassador Christopher Stevens and 3 other Americans were terrorism and claimed by a known terrorist group.

Reuters reported last night, “Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.”

Nowhere in these emails is a YouTube video mentioned…not even once.

This blows a hole in everything the President, the vice-president and every mouthpiece they employ has been saying all along. In other words, they lied, knowingly and willingly, to the American people, to the families of the victims, for weeks.

Why would they do it? Politics.

It’s pretty simple – the President and his campaign have been travelling the country since the Democratic National Convention, slinging the line “Osama Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.” They wanted people to think, as the President said, “Al Qaeda is on its heels.” Terrorists plotting and executing an attack on US soil, murdering an Ambassador, causes that narrative to crumble like a house of cards.

Lara Logan, the 60 Minutes correspondent, told the world Al Qaeda was not on the run a few weeks ago, but the most of the media shrugged it off, ignoring her in the hope the administration’s lie would be unquestioned as truth…at least until November 7th.

But it hasn’t. The emperor has no clothes. The President lied about the motivation for the attack, lied about his knowledge of the motivation for the attack and lied to cover up all of it.

You may think the word “lie” is too strong, but there’s no other for when someone knowingly and willingly says something as true when they know it not to be. That’s what we have here, beyond any doubt.

The White House and the State Department watched, in real time from an overhead drone, live video of the attack and did nothing. They did nothing to help those Americans under attack, those Americans who ended up dead.

No action was taken, no troops deployed to aid those under siege in the 7 hour attack. That’s right, the attack lasted 7 hours. That’s more than enough time to scramble fighter jets that could have easily flown over the consulate and, at a minimum, scared the hell out of the attacking terrorists forces, if not kill them.

President Obama and his administration did nothing.

Considering that, it’s little wonder why the video lie was created. Why the President, Vice President and UN Ambassador Susan Rice stuck to it even at it unraveled. They wanted desperately to get to November 7th, the day after the election, before the truth came out. Too late.

What lie will they tell now? How will they try to spin their being caught in this lie?

With this news breaking last night, Mitt Romney’s lack of attack in the debate Monday on the failures of Benghazi seem all the more a strategic win. There was no reason for Romney to attack the President on his failures in Libya because the story already had a life of its own. The President was undoubtedly prepared with well rehearsed responses of indignation that Romney would dare “politicize” this attack.

Of course, “We should not politicize this issue” is the last, desperate gasp of someone who really doesn’t want to discuss something. By not giving the President a chance to use his canned response, Romney kept the story alive. Obama couldn’t rebut what he wasn’t accused of, couldn’t spin what wasn’t thrown his way. The story continued to develop untouched, un-rebutted, unspun with the latest poll-tested nuance to paint plausible deniability. It’s doubtful the White House was blindsided by this yesterday, so Romney’s silence on it didn’t allow the Obama team to head it off at the pass.

There is, speaking on a purely natural level, a very good commentary save for one quibble that I have with the author's belief that the presidential nominee of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist "right," former Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Willard Mitt Romney, was well-served by not discussing this scandalous coverup during his final debate with Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro on Monday, October 22, 2012, at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida.

What I have found most revealing about the scandal represented by the Benghazi coverup is how little outrage is being expressed by the American public about it.

Sure, one would expect the state-controlled media to overlook, minimize or deny that such a coverup took place and to feed the talking points given them by Obama/Soetoro's Karl Rove, David Axelrod, into the mouths of the institutionalized viewers who watch MSNBC or CNBC or Current or any other of their their broadcast, print or internet propaganda outlets.

As I noted two days ago in Without Any Rational Foundation, Willard Mitt Romney had an obligation to engender public outrage over these acts of treason that cost the lives of Americans even though we know now that Tyrone Woods, one of a former Navy SEAL guarding the American compound in Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday, September 11, 2012 (CIA Operators Were Denied Requests For Help During Attack on Consulate and Petraeus Throws President Under Bus). Romney did not so because he is not equipped with the nimbleness of mind to have responded to whatever retort Obama/Soetoro would have made, something that he demonstrated in his previous debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, Long Island, New York, on Tuesday, October 16,.2012, and because he, a man who calculates his every move. believed that there was too much "risk" with "moderate" women in "swing states" to emphasize these irresponsibly treasonous acts and the lies told to cover them up. This is not the stuff of leadership even on the natural level.

Sure. I understand full well the natural and fully justifiable revulsion with which any right-thinking American would have at these events and the liars responsible for them. I share the absolute horror that the Vice President of the United States of America, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., would talk in grossly vulgar terms to Charles Woods, the father of the slain Tyrone Woods, at a White House event honoring those killed because of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro's refusal to "offend" the tender sensibilities of Mohammedans in Libya and elsewhere around the world by sending in the assistance that our countrymen needed in time of siege (for a report on Biden's vulgarity, see what this vulgar excuse of a Catholic man said to Charles Woods, doing so only if one has a need and the intestinal fortitude to see another example of a vulgar man's vulgarity, chronicled in When "Boys Will Be Boys" They Grow Up to Be Men Like Joe Biden).

The chowderheads and meatheads of the false opposite of the naturalist "left" have, however, mustered up a great deal of sanctimonious outrage over Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock's statement, made in a debate with his Democratic opponent for the United States Senate seat in the Hoosier State that has been held by the former Mayor of Indianapolis ("Nixon's favorite mayor" as he was called at the time), Richard Lugar, since January 3, 1977, concerning conception being the natural result of what God intended to occur when the gift He has given to men for the continuation of the species and to populate Heaven no matter how it took place, including the tragedy of an assault upon a woman:

Mourdock, who's been locked in one of the country's most watched Senate races, was asked during the final minutes of a debate with Democratic challenger Rep. Joe Donnelly whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen," Mourdock said. (Romney distances himself from Mourdock's comments)

Well, Mr. Mourdock, who is not a Catholic, need not have "struggled" with understanding the simple truth that an innocent baby conceived under such circumstances is loved by God, Who did not intend the circumstances under which the child came into existence but Who nevertheless has chosen his mother in His ineffable Providence what appears to the worldly-minded to be an "unbearable" cross to give Him honor and glory through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. A child is never to be punished for the sins of his father. Never. Innocent human life is inviolable in all circumstances and can never be subjected to any direct, intentional attack upon it, something that Mr. Mourdock does not understand as he makes an "exception" for when it is alleged that there is a threat to the life of a mother.

For stating the simple truth that a child is the natural result of the use of the gift proper to married couples even in such circumstances that are laden with emotion, you see, Mr. Mourdock came under attack from all manner of forces as well as hearing Willard Mitt Romney's campaign spokesman, Andrea Saul, distance the former pro-abort-turned-"pro-lifer"-turned "moderate" Romney from yet another supposedly "controversial" comment made by a Republican candidate for the United States Senate:

It was not immediately clear what effect Mourdock's comments might have during the final two weeks before the Nov. 6 election. But they could prove problematic. Romney distanced himself from Mourdock on Tuesday night — a day after a television ad featuring the former Massachusetts governor supporting the GOP Senate candidate began airing in Indiana.

"Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock's comments, and they do not reflect his views," Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in an email to The Associated Press. Romney aides would not say whether the ad would be pulled and if the Republican presidential nominee would continue to support Mourdock's Senate bid. (Romney distances himself from Mourdock's comments)

What is there to disagree with, Willard?

We know, of course, that you are boasting of support for contraception and the direct, intentional killing of innocent preborn babies in their mothers' wombs in this and two other instances (see Romney Ad Touts Moderate Views on Abortion). What you do not recognize, Mr. Romney, is that no one can consider himself "pro-life," no less expect the electoral support of voters who consider themselves to be "pro-life." if he supports contraception, which denies the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage, and/or if he supports the direct, intentional destruction of an innocent human life under any circumstances whatsoever.

What is perhaps most disconcerting, ladies and gentlemen of the peanut gallery, is that there is a great deal of understandable outrage about the Benghazi betrayal and about the fact the the Obama/Soetoro campaign is running an advertisement to promote its support of contraception in the most graphic, vulgar, demeaning terms possible while "pro-life" voters either close their eyes or hold their noses without saying a word in opposition to the Romney campaign's own "pro-contraception" and "pro-abortion" advertisement. Why the hypocrisy.

What the American public, caught in the diabolical trap that is and will ever remain Americanism, does not understand is that this is all a farce. Out-and-out pro-aborts are told to "fear" Romney because he is opposed to taxpayer funded of Planned Parenthood and related organizations even though he has donated money to this nefarious organization and made sure that is played a role in RomneyCare in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and because he is said to be opposed to abortion-on-demand even though he has said that he plans no "new" abortion legislation if elected and the the matter of abortion has to be "settled" in the courts (see Des Moines Register in Iowa for article).

Why the silence?

Why the silence that is so eerily familiar of how allegedly "traditional" Catholics keep their mouths shut as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI offends the honor and majesty and glory of God by personally esteeming the symbols of false doctrines and calling their places of false worship as "sacred? Is the current silence from "pro-lifers" about Willard Mitt Romney's embrace of contraception and direct, intentional baby-killing in "some" cases yet another proof (as if we needed any) that this is what we can expect from them if. Romney is elected in eleven days? The past history on this silence, documented in Without Any Rational Foundation, speaks for itself.

When you think about it, however, there is a great contrast in the understandable, legitimate outrage that America patriots have over the Benghazi scandal and the utter sense of resignation that even most supposedly "pro-life" voters have about the daily slaughter of the preborn, both by chemical and surgical means, that takes place under the cover of the civil law in this country and around the world. Americans, including most Catholics here in the United States of America, have been so brainwashed by the lies of naturalism that they do not see that a nation that sanctions the genocide of the preborn on a daily basis will be led ultimately by men who have no concern for any human life, including personnel of the American armed services, that they place into harm's way and then refuse to defend if it is going to cause them to admit error or, worse yet, admit that their military policies of interventionism in support of Mohammedans has been nothing other than an unmitigated disaster. This is true of both the previous presidential administration and the current one.

When are Catholic, no matter where they fall on the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide, going to recognize and accept the truth written over five hundred years ago now and cited by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929?

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the
spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much
the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it
is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual
means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end
and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good
citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a
civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the
Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are
absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of
those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can
produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make
for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence
say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce
true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to
the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

Although the proximate antecedent roots to the chastisement that faces
us today date back to certain elements of the Renaissance and, as
mentioned earlier, the Protestant Revolution and the subsequent rise and
triumph of naturalism, the rapid promotion of evil under cover of the
civil law has occurred in the past fifty years in no small measure as a
result of the counterfeit church of conciliarism's "reconciliation" with
the principles of Modernity and as a result of its sacramentally barren
liturgical rites that have predisposed so many millions of Catholics to
embrace the "secular magisterium" of the world and to scoff at
any residue of Catholic teaching that remains in that conciliar church.

We, though, must be reminded of the truths taught by such great apostles of Christ the King as the late Louis-Edouard-François-Desiré Cardinal Pie, whose writing had the support of Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X and Benedict XV (the latter two long after Cardinal Pie's death, having studied his writings in great depth and approving of them without any complaint), wrote in the Nineteenth Century:

"If Jesus Christ," proclaims Msgr. Pie in a
magnificent pastoral instruction, "if Jesus Christ Who is our light
whereby we are drawn out of the seat of darkness and from the shadow of
death, and Who has given to the world the treasure of truth and grace,
if He has not enriched the world, I mean to say the social and political
world itself, from the great evils which prevail in the heart of
paganism, then it is to say that the work of Jesus Christ is not a
divine work. Even more so: if the Gospel which would save men is
incapable of procuring the actual progress of peoples, if the revealed
light which is profitable to individuals is detrimental to society at
large, if the scepter of Christ, sweet and beneficial to souls, and
perhaps to families, is harmful and unacceptable for cities and empires;
in other words, if Jesus Christ to whom the Prophets had promised and
to Whom His Father had given the nations as a heritage, is not able to
exercise His authority over them for it would be to their detriment and
temporal disadvantage, it would have to be concluded that Jesus Christ
is not God". . . .

"To say Jesus Christ is
the God of individuals and of families, but not the God of peoples and
of societies, is to say that He is not God. To say that Christianity is
the law of individual man and is not the law of collective man, is to
say that Christianity is not divine. To say that the Church is the judge
of private morality, but has nothing to do with public and political
morality, is to say that the Church is not divine."

In fine, Cardinal Pie insists:

"Christianity would not be divine if it were to have existence within individuals but not with regard to societies."

Fr. de St. Just asks, in conclusion:

"Could it be proven in clearer terms that social atheism conduces to individualistic atheism?" (Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of
Poitiers, Catholic Action Resource Center.)

Root causes. Keep focused on root causes. It is not a bad to "easy" solutions. However, there are none for us at the present time.

Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order, and it is because the lords of conciliarism have abandoned the Catholic Faith and exalted "Man" and his "ability" to "better" the world that we find ourselves deep in an abyss caused by the concentration of almost all philosophical errors and theological heresies that have been known in salvation history from which the only escape is through Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart as we continue to pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.